He Can Use A Silencer Near Yellowstone, But Not At A Gun Range in 17 States

“In U.S. v. Stump, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 842 (4th Cir. 1997), the trial judge found that the two silencers had been used by the defendant for legitimate ‘sporting purposes’ and characterized the offense as a technical, ‘bare-boned’ violation. The trial court thus sentenced the defendant to only two months imprisonment; but the Appeals Court ruled that the judge could not depart from the guidelines which required a minimum sentence of 27 months for illegal possession.” [Click here to download the 2007 paper Criminal Use of Firearm Silencers]

comments

  1. avatar Mike says:

    Not having read the article, the result today would have been different after U.S. v. Booker and Blakely v. Washington

  2. avatar Robert Farago says:

    Do tell.

  3. avatar William Carr says:

    ” legitimate ‘sporting purposes’ ”

    Silencers are not ‘sporting’ equipment. They are only useful for sneaking around.

    1. avatar Mac says:

      Silencers are not for “sneaking around.” They’re for plinking in the back field without annoying the hell out of your neighbors. They’re for teaching a young child the basics of firearm safety without the distraction of loud, frightening noises.

      Noise reduction is always a good thing. My wife’s car is very quiet — is it also for “sneaking around?”

      I could go on, but I suspect you have an agenda which is unlikely to be swayed by reason.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email